A letter to the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Quebec on subjects connected with tractarianism in the Church [microform]

A LETTER

TO THE RIGHT REV.

THE LORD BISHOP OF QUEBEC,

Subjects connected ith Cractarianism
IN THE CHURCH.

BY

THE REV. GILBERT PEROY, LL. D., T. 0. D.
Cathedral Lecturer, and Secretary of the Diocesan Church Society.

QUEBEC :
PRINTED BY P, LAMOUREUX, SHAW'S BUILDINGS,
FOOT OF MOUNTAIN HILL, LOWER TOWN.

‘From all false doctrine, heresy, and schism;
from hardness of heart and contempt of thy Word
and Commandment, good Lord deliver us.”—
LiTany.

TO THE RIGHT REV.

THE LORD BISHOP OF QUEBEC.

ELELDALOLWOOWhWww

My Lorp,

When I reflect upon occurrences of no
remote date in England, when I recall the teachings of
Archdeacon Denison, the mummeries enacted at St.
Paul’s, Knightsbridge, and at St. Barnabas’, the atroci-
ties, (I can call them by no lighter name) perpetrated
in the Scobell case, and other matters of a cognate
character, too numerous and too notorious to demand
any thing more than a mere passing reference, I con-
sider no apology to be necessary on my part, as .an
attached member and humble Minister of the Church
of England, for taking the liberty of addressing this
letter to your Lordship, whose especial duty it is to
watch over not merely the temporal concerns, but infi-
nitely more so over the spiritual interests of the Church
in this diocese: and, consequently, to employ your best
and holiest energies in the endeavour to “ banish and
“drive away all erroneous and s°iange doctrine con-
“ trary to God’s word.”

I believe, my Lord, that Tractarian tendencies are
stealthily, but steadily, developing themselves in our
midst. And if weof the Clergy, who are set as watch-
men unto the house of Israel, will not lift up a standard,
if we suffer our trumpets to send forth an uncertain
sound, if we give no warning when the enemy approaches,
and is even at our gates, great will be our guilt: and of
our Zion it may be said, “ Her watchmen are blind;
“they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they
« cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.”

I do not mean, my Lord, to insinuate, (when I bring
an accusation, it is not my wont to hint it: but to state
it honestly and boldly), I do not mean, in any wise, to

4

insinuate that there is aught of unsoundness in the
clergy, as .a body:—God forbid that I should do
so! for that were contrary to my firm persuasion and
belief. Nor do I mean to imply that their flocks
are in any degree infected with the virus of Tractaria-
nism. n the contrary, I believe most firmly, and
beg leave most sincerely to congratutate your Lord-
ship on the fact, (for such I am convinced it is) that the
Laity ara thoroughly sound, and to a man opposed
either to the introduction of Oxford novelties, or to the
revival of exploded superstitions. And, if it were ne-
cessary to call upon them for an expression of their
sentiments, I entertain the full conviction that I should
he justified in confidently assuring your Lordship, that
they would be ite to come forward, as true Church-
men, and practically mark their appreciation of the
“cunning craftiness ” of those, who are endeavouring,
80 far as their puny efforts may, to insinuate between
the goodly hewn stones of our Protestant Church the
narrow extremity of the Tractarian wedge. An attempt,
(blessed be He that reigneth over Zion!), that must
prove bootless, and profitless, and vain, so long as
churchmen acknowledge the Bible, the Bible only, as
the charter of their Church! In abler hands indeed,
far abler than those that at present attempt to wield
the implement, the effort would prove a failure, com-
plete and total. I have therefore no apprehension what-
ever from its application, under the direction of the
class of individuals, who for some time have ventured
to assume its management. But, though we may not
fear for the stability of the edifice, it is our duty,
your Lordship’s duty and ours, the duty both of the
Laity and of the Clergy, to look well that it be neither
dishonoured, nor disfigured, that its fair proportions be
net marred, nor its goodly stone-work overlaid with any
worthless “ daubing of untempered mortar.”
Occupying, by your Lordship’s appointment, the
position which I have the honour to hold among the
Clergy of Quebec, and filling the important situation of
Secretary to the Church Soviety of the Diocese, I feel
it a duty doubly incumbent upon me to oppose, so far as
my poor efforts may, practices and principles, which I
beli:ve to be not only contrary to the doctrines of the

5

Church of England, but to be subversive of them, and to
be based on deadly error. I am aware, my Lord, that
in the faithful discharge of such a duty, I cannot hope
to escape the shafts that “ back-wounding calumny ” may
aim, that I must anticipate the possible incurring of no
small amount of obloquy, that I must expect to have the
purity of my motives impugned, that I must submit to

© looked upon by some as a troubler of Israel. But, I
have counted the cost: and, in the cause of truth; in
the cause of the Church of England, which I believe to
be the cause of Christ; God being my helper, I value
not what man can do unto me.

But I have a good hope, however, that the general
verdict of the Church in this Diocese will not be unfa-
vourable to me; and that ¢hey will rather be stamped
as the troublers of Israel, who, through a silly fondness
for the puerile absurdities of past ages, an insane desire
for the revival of practices long obsolete, a childish
passion for the introduction of frivolous novelties, and
the inculcation of exaggerated views of things in them-
selves indifferent, have excited divisions, given origin to
doubts, and stirred up strife among the congregation of
the Lord. Iam confident, indeed, that persons of the
class described will be looked upon as disturbers of the
Chureh’s peace, rather than they, who take their stand
upon her Articles and Liturgy; and fearlessly, because
conscientiously, oppose the insidious artifices of those,
who in the pride of that “ little learning,’ whereof
‘shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,” or through
simple, senseless folly, would graft, in this young Land,
upon the goodly stem of the Church‘the foul, unwhole-
some branches of the Tractarian Upas-tree.

I am thas, my Lord, ina measure forced by my
position ; compelled by a sense of duty; constrained by
the anti-Church-of-England principles and practices of
some, from whom one might have expected better
things ; to come forward before the public, in a manner
foreign from my habits, and altogether uncongenial to
my disposition.

But, in addition to these motives, in themselves
sufficient, I have yet another, of closer perscaal interest
to myself; the importance of which your Lordship will
readily acknowledge. Having, not long ago, on the

6

platform of a public meeting, expressed my belief that
Tractarian principles were heing disseminated by cer-
tain individuals in this Diocese; and your Lordship
having shortly after, at a committee of the Church So-
ciety, pointedly expressed your dissent from the opi-
nions, which I had - expression to on the occasion
in question, and declared your firm conviction that
there existed no foundation for them; I feel that your
Lordship has left me no alternative, but. either to
retract my statements, as publicly as they were made,
acknowledging separ | that I had been mistaken; a
course which none would adopt more cheerfully and more
honestly than I, should my views be indeed demonstrat-
ed as erroneous: or to endeavour to establish the allega-
tions offered, to substantiate the charges made, and thus
to evince that I have spoken neither falsely, nor “ unad-
visedly with my lips.”

On the present occasion, Sef pachaa to myself the
right of entering, in all probability, more largely upon
the subject hereafter), I shall confine myself to a review
of a single Tract, which has been put into circulation by
some of your Lordship’s Clergy. And, if I succeed in
proving—as I fully expect, with God’s help, to do—that
many of the doctrines therein inculcated are plainl
repugnant to those taught by the Church of England,
and are in perfect harmony with the Tractarian heresies
of the present day, such is my confidence in your Lord-
ship’s sense of justice, and so strong my belief in your
lack of sympathy with the views of modern innovators,
that Iam convinced you will at once pronounce me
guiltless of misrepresentation; and, however grieved at
the necessity which called for such exposure, you will
rejoice that such unwholesome and erroneous doctrines
have been dragged from their darkness into the light of
day, that they may be known, and condemned, and
shunned by the true children of the Church.

There is then, my Lord, a Tract, published by the
“ Society for promoting Christian Knowledge,” at pre-
sent circulating in your Lordship’s Diocese, and in your
Lordship’s parish, to which I beg respectfully to direct
your special attention. It consists of extracts from the
works of Nelson, an old writer, who lived during the
reigns of Charles II., James II. and William III. To

7

James II. of persecuting and popish memory, he was
devotedly attached: and, on the accession of William,
he remained a non-juror, refusing to take the oath of
allegiance to the Protestant King; and so continued to
remain, until a few years previous to his death. The
Tract professes to be merely a disquisition on ‘“ The
Ember-days of the Four Seasons ;’”’ but its main objects
most unquestionably are, or, at least, its direct tendency
most indubitably is, to exalt unduly the importance of
external ordinances, and to magnify, beyond all reasona-
ble bounds, the dignity of the clerical Order.

The writer’s inordinate zeal for the attainment uf these
ends may in part be accounted for ; and, in a good man,
to a certain extent excused; when we consider the
peculiar circumstances of the Church of England in his
day. “ Living at a time,” (as stated in Life of the Au-
thor, prefixed to the edition of the original work, pub.
1848.) “when sound doctrinco and pure morality were
“alike banished from the high places of the earth, and
“when the holiest ordinances of our religion were ne-
“ glected or impugned ;” living in an age, as he him-
self remarks in his preface, “ which among those crying
“ abominations, that like a torrent had overspread the
“nation, seemed to distinguish itself by a great con-
“tempt for the Clergy:” it is scarcely to be wondered
at that, as the over-strained steel will rebound in the
direction diametrically opposite to that of the foree
originally applied, he should have been led, through
disgust at the tone of reckless immorality so generally
prevalent throughout the land, and the spirit of neglect-
ful apathy exhibited towards even the most solemn
of the outward rites and ceremonies of the Church, to
rush into the opposite extreme; and to look upon those
things as constituting the substance of religion, which
are its adjuncts merely, or at most, only the means or
vehicles of grace.

Actuated by such an influence as this—so at least, in
charity, I would assume—actuated by such an infin-
ence itis, that, indignant at the contempt poured upon
Festivals and Fasts by the Puritans, and at the general
indifference manifested towards them by the members
of the Church of England, he is seduced into an.
unholy effort to elevate them to the same level of sanc-

8

tity with the Seventh Day, to rank the institutions of
man high as the ordinances of the Lord !——Here are his
own words, as written in the preface: “ It is highly
“ probable, from all Sundays in the year being placed
“at the head of the festivals, that it was the intention
“of those that compiled the Liturgy that they should
‘‘ all be observed after the same manner, not only with
“‘ prayers and thanksgivings, but with rest from ordi-
“nary labour.’ A conclusion, directly the reverse of
that at which, I confess, I should have arrived from the
same premises. For, as the Sundays are placed “ at
the head,” not mingled nor amalgamated with the Fes-
tivals: and, in every Book of Common Prayer that I
have ever seen, severed from them by a separating line ;
I should have concluded, that the compilers of our
Liturgy looked upon them as essentially distinct, did
not mean that they should be observed after the same
mene and gave the higher honour to the Sabbath
ay.

But, my Lord, omitting any further reference to the
preface, I beg permission to direct your attention to
the Extracts themselves.

The first chapter is taken up with an account of the
Ember-Days, speculations as to the etymology of the
term, Doctor Maraschal’s conjectures upon the subject,
the mode of manufacturing Ember-bread, and the pro-
per time for eating it; together with a lengthy disqui-
sition on the several offices of Deacon, Archdeacon,
Priest, Presbyter, Bishop, Archbishop, Primate, and
Metropolitan :—topics which, however interesting, or
even useful in their proper place, your Lordship will
agree with me, are likely to prove any thing but “ good
to the use of edifying,’’ any thing but profitable to the
the soul’s health, or conducive to the spiritual suste-
nance, of the generality of the dwellers in St. John’s or
St. Louis’ Suburbs.

With one further reference, I shall dismiss this chap-
ter. In answer to the question, “ What is the office of a
Bishop ?”’ it is stated, among other matters, that it is
his office “ to absolve penitents.” Now, my Lord, as this
Tract is exposed for sale at the Depository of the Church
Society, of which your Lordship is tlie President, and is
circulated extensively in this parish, of which your Lord-

4
i

idea Sa ce ARIE a OS SS

eae emia

anc aaa ata aaa ee SSR eS

ee

% a aS ial a tia
i ap AREAS ARTE a

Sea ies SRS OR 0s a 5

ne iia te MRC te

Patient

Sate eae f

9

ship isthe Rector, {tis to be presumed that such sale,
and such circulation, meet with your sanction and ap-
proval. I feel myself therefore fully justified, for the
honour of that Church, Reformed and Protestant, to
which we belong, whose pure and un-popish doctrines
are built upon the unerring Word alone; but infinitely
more so, for the sake of the poor and ignorant, who may
read that Tract; for the sake of the immortal souls,
whom Gop only can absolve from sin—I feel myself,
for these and other reasons, fully justified in calling
upon your Lordship to explain distinctly, to define ex-
plicitly, what meaning they are to attach to these words,
in what sense they are to understand the declaration,
that it is one of your Lordship’s episcopal and priestly
functions “ to absolve penitents.”’

The secon. chapter is chiefly occupied with the subject
of Ordination. ‘The questions are largely discussed, as to
whether “ the office of the Apostles was superior to that
“‘ of the Seventy ;”’ and as to “‘ what powers were exer-
“‘cised by the Apostles, which the Seventy were not
«endowed with.’ Various testimonies are cited in evi-
dence of the early establishment of episcopal govern-
ment. In the course of one brief page we find the
following formidable catalogue of Worthies of the
ancient days :—St. Clement, St. Ignatius, Clemens Alex-
andrinus, Ireneus, Tertullian, Origen, St. Cyprian, and
Eusebius. An array of authorities, whose very names,
one would suppose, ought to be sufficient ti carry con-
viction to the hearts of all the inhabitants of the Sub-
urbs. But, lest names alone might prove inadequate to
evince to them, (what possibly they never questioned),
that the power of Ordination belongs solely to the Bishop,
they are overwhelmed by the very words of Jerome,
the ipsissima Latin words themselves! ‘ Quid enim
“ facit, except& ordinatione, episcopus, quod presbyter
“non faciat !”

What a profitable Tract for the perusal of the poor
and ignorant, for the enlightening of the ungodly and the
sinner !

Towards the conclusion of this chapter we find the
question propounded, “‘ What privilege, besides Ordi-
‘‘ nation, is peculiar to the character of a Bishop ?”—
The reply to which is, in part, “ The solemn rite of

B

10

“¢ Confirmation; wherein the Bishop, by laying on of
*“‘ hands, and authoritative prayer, conveys to such per-
*¢ sons, who in the presence of the congregation sincerely
*« renew their baptismal vow, a ge heap degree of
“ God’s Grace and Holy Spirit.” I mean not to decry
the rite of Confirmation. I desite not to cast the
slightest slur upon its usefulness. It is a holy, an
ancient, and, to those that are recipients of it in a fitting
spirit, a beneficial rite. But, I had supposed, and so, I
presume, had most Church-of-England men supposed,
that the goodness of God would: unfailingly, for Christ’s
sake, bestow his Grace and Holy Spirit upon all, (how-
ever in themselves confessedly unworthy of such vast
blessings), who should sincerely renew their baptismal
vow, even though they had never been participants of
that Rite: upon all, who should from the heart “ re-
“ nounce the devil and all his works, the pomps and
“ vanity of this wicked world, and all the sinful lusts of
“the flesh :” upon all, who should from the heart * be-
“ lieve all the Articles of the Ohristian Faith :” upon
all who, in reliance on His aid, should faithfully resolve
to “ keep God’s holy will and commandments, and walk
‘in the same all the days of their life.” But no!—
These blessings are to be attained, not through repen-
tance, not through faith, not through the individual
sinner’s heart-wrung supplications, not even from the
overflowings of God’s spontaneous goodness: but—by
the Bishop's hands, and through his “ authoritative
prayer.” These are the mystic vehicles of the Holy
Ghost: the magic conveyancers of the Grace of God!

The writer proceeds to say, “in the primitive times
these effects,” (i. 6. God’s Grace, and Holy Spirit),
“ were extraordinary gifts, as best fitted to the infant
‘ state of the church; but, upon the settlement of it, the
“ Holy Spirit guides it by secret and invisible communi-
‘cations; and these common graces are cbtained by
« such as are qualified,” (the Romish grace de congruo,
I presume) “ to receive them, and seek them in a regular
and ministerial way’’—that is, of course, by the laying
‘on of hands, and by the authoritative prayet.

After these statements, I-confess that I was surpri-
sed to find the writer quoting the 1x. canon, in the most
‘welftcomplacent manner possible, as though it favoured

on of
( per-
berely
ee of
decry
t the
Y> an
tting
so, I
boséd,
hrist’s
(how-
vast
ismal
ints of
i} re-
' and
sts of
6 be-
upon
solve
walk
NO fan
‘epen:
ridual
n the
t—by
ed
oly
rd |
times
pirit),
nfant
t, the
muni-
d by
gruo,
pular
ying

irpri-
most

Bt
the views which he pecparede instead of being directly:
opposed to them. In good sooth, my Lord, hero or
nowhere have we 4
“ the engineer.
Hoist by his own petard !”

Quoting the canon, he observes that the Church of
England has thus declared her sense of this matter:
«“ It hath been a solemn, ancient, and laudable custom,
‘ continued from the Apostles’ time, that all bishops:
‘“¢ should lay their hands upon children baptized and ins.
‘‘tructed in the catechism of the Christian religion,
“‘ praying over them and blessing them’—(Can. lx.)—
Yes, that is precisely the Church of England’s doctrine :
but manifestly not the doctrine of the old Non-juror;
although, by what appears to border on a “ pious fraud,”
he would fain press this canon into his service, and have
us believe that it speaks the language of his superstition.
The bishop, according to the accredited authorities of
the Church of England, lays his hands upon those who
come forward to be confirmed, praying over them, and
blessing them. But neither Canon, nor Confirmation.
Service, breathes one syllable of the authoritative prayer
which conveys God’s Grace and Holy Spirit.

We turn over a page or two, in which Tertullian, St,
Cyprian, and Jerome, are again paraded, and we find, in
an enumeration of the qualifications necessary for Con-
firmation, the following indispensable one; ‘ They must
‘‘ prepare themselves for this ordinance by prayer and
“ fasting, &c.***** And, in order to these ends, it is
‘‘ advisable that the candidate should frequently read
“over the Offices of Baptism and Confirmation.’ I
have just read them both over, on the supposition of a
possible failureof my memory; but in neither of these
Offices isthe word, ‘* fasting,” so much as once men-
tioned, nor is there even a remote allusion to the subject.

The concluding query in the chapter now under
review, has reference to the advantages of Confirmation.
Among the advantages specified is the following one:
“It conveys divine grace to encounter our spiritual
‘¢ enemies, and to enable us to perform what we. under-
take.” . Indeed! .Confirmation conveys divine grace!
enables us to encounter our spiritual enemies, and to
perform what we undertake !-—If this be indeed the case,

1%
then fs the Romish doctrine of the opus operatum true,
and it is the doctrine of the Church of England !—which

I deny.

Chapter ITI dilates largely on “ the dignity of the

Priesthood.”—There isno one, my Lord, less disposed
than I, to detract from the true dignity of the Olergy.—
It is impossible, or, at least, it were absurd, to suspect
me of any motive for desiring the depreciation of mine
own Order. Heartily doI subscribe to the declaration of
the author of this Tract, that the office of a Christian
Minister is “ an employment in its own nature the most
‘‘ honourable, and in its effects the most beneficial to
“ mankind.” But, when he demands, “what are the
benefits of the Priesthood ?” and replies that, mong
other things), “ itis by the execution of the Priest’s
“ Office, that our spiritual life ts ma¢ntained by the Holy
“ Eucharist,” 1 demur to this, and I denounce it as a
Romish figment, and a. most unscriptural falsehood.
_ The Catechism ofthe Church of England asserts that
the benefits, whereof we are partakers through the Eu-
charist, are, not the maintaining of the life of our souls,
but the “ strengthening and refreshing,’ only, of our
souls, And an authority, higher than that of the Cate-
chism, has enunciated the glorious and eternal truth, that
it is“ Christ who is our life.’ ‘*I am crucified with
Christ ; " (saith the great Apostle of the Gentiles), never-
theless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and
the life which I now live in the flesh, I live’—not by
sacramental grace, not by eucharistic ordinances !—but,
“‘ by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and
gave himself for me.”

Again, it is asserted that by the execution of the
Priest’s office, * the pardon of our sins is signed and
sealed to us.” What the meaning of this may be, I
do not pretend to understand: and, in the hope of an
explanation being offered, ‘ pause for a reply.”

Again, it is asserted that ‘“‘ our minds and consciences
“‘ are quieted by the comfort and benefit of absolution.”
The allusion here is, I presume, to the form of absolu-
tion in the Order for the Visitation of the Sick, and to the
first Exhortation in the Communion Service: but, if so,
the writer has strangely pretermitted all notice of the
accompanying “ ghostly counsel and advice,” which are

13

described as equally ministering to “ the quieting of the
** conscience, and the avoiding of all scruple and doubt-
“ fulness.”

I confess, my Lord, that I had once felt much diffi-
culty on the subject of the form of absolution referred
to. The apparent strength of the language employed
perplexed, and, (I may acknowledge it), almost con-
founded me. But, the more searchingly I investigated
the question, the more closely I compared the form with
other portions of the same Office; 1 am rejoiced to be
enabled to say, so much the more firmly did I become
convinced, that they who framed that Form, meant it to
be viewed in a precatory and declaratory light only, not
in a judicial. The words of absolution, let us observe,
are introduced by an acknowledgment, that they only
have any claim to pardon and forgiveness, “ who truly
repent, and believe’ in the Lord Jesus: and earnest
prayer is offered to Him, that “of his great mercy He
may forgive the offences” of the penitent.. And im-
mediately after the utterance of the form, the direction
of the Rubric is, “ Then the Priest shall say the Collect
following.’’ Now, the Collect following contains this
petition, “‘ Open thine eye of mercy upon this thy ser-
“ vant, who most earnestly desireth pardon and forgive-
“ ness.”’ But why should this fervent prayer.for mercy
be, at that instant, offered in the penitent’s behalf ; if, in
that very moment, he had already obtained mercy,
through the priestly absolution? Or why should the
absolved penitent still «most earnestly desire pardon
and forgiveness,” if the priestly lips had already con-
ferred upon him both? Again, in the same Collect
there is the following petition : “‘ Forasmuch as he, (the
“ penitent) putteth his full trust only in thy mercy, im-
“pute not unto him his former sins.” Now, on the
supposition of the penitent having just received judicial
absolution from the priest, could any thing, (I appeal to
the common sense of men), could any thing be imagined
more outrageously contradictory, more incongruously
absurd, than that the absolving priest, having by God’s
authority pronounced the pardon of the penitent’s “ for-
mer sins,” should in the same breath thus earnestly
supplicate the Lord that those self-same former sins may
not be imputed to him? Is there not indeed throughout

14

this whole Collect, ‘to be used Immediately after the
form of absolution, a complete and full acknowledgment,
on the part both of the penitent and of the priest, that
God only can pronounce the absolute pardon of sin: and
that the priestly absolution, even in the Office for the
Sick, is nothing more than that which is delivered
continually from our Desks, in the order for Morning and
Evening Prayer throughout the year ; wherein it is pro-
claimed, that Almighty God hath given power and
“ commandment to his Ministers, to declare and pro-
“‘nounce to his people, being penitent, the Absolution
“and Remission of their sins ?”

That the Church of England attaches no very weighty
measure of importance to the form of Absolution embo-
died in the Order for the Visitation of the Sick, is, I con+
ceive, sufficiently evident from several considerations.
She can scarcely, indeed, be said to do more than merely
to suggest its use, and that only on particular occasions.
She certainly does not any where positively enjoin it.
The Rubric simply says, that if the sick person “ feel
his conscience troubled with any weighty matter,” he
shall be moved to make confession of his sins, (to which,
who is there that will object ?), and then the form of
Absolution may be used, or shall be used; but only, (it
is expressly provided), if the person “ humbly and hear-
tily desire it’? Asa further evidence that the Church
attaches no undue weight to the form of Absolution, I
may state, on the authority of Procter, (Hist. Prayer
Book, Note, P. 389), a witness certainly not prejudiced
in favour of the views I advocate, that while the Rubric
of 1549 required this Absolution to be used in a7 in-
stances of confession, this direction was omitted in 1552,
and the phrase shall absolve “ after this sort’ substi-
tuted for the original “ after this form.” An omission,
and a substitution, manifestly not made without désign,
not without significance ; and, in my judgment, clearly
establishing the fact, that not merely was the use of the
Absolution left discretionary with the Minister, but even
the words with which it should be clothed, the shape in
which it should be delivered, He is to absolve, not
after this form, but after this sor¢: that is, on this wise,
after this fashion. .

. In explanation of the reason why it is directed in the

or the
ement,
at, that
n: and
or the
ivered
hg and
is pro-
pr and

L pro.
lution

15

Rubric, that the Absolution in the Morning ‘Service
should be pronounced by the Priest, and not by a Dea-
con, I find the following argument in “ Hill’s Letter to
the Laity,” p. 19: an argument which, I conceive, may
with equal force be applied, mutatis mutandis, as fur-
nishing us with reasons, sufficient to enable us to account
satisfactorily for the strength of language admitted in
the Absolution in the Order for the Visitation of the
sick.- ‘* Perhaps,” he says, “ it may be asked, ‘ Why
«¢ does the Ohurch of England confine to Priests the
“ power of pronouncing Absolution, if it be nothing more
«than a declaration of forgiveness, upon repentance !’
“ I reply, Because, when-our Liturgy was drawn up, the
“‘ nzople had been accustomed to rate very highly the
“ benefits of Absolution; and our Reformers, anxious
‘¢ not to shock, unnecessarily, the prejudices of the peo-
* ple, nor altogether deprive them of their accustomed
* cordial, lest it should be said ‘ the old wine is better, .
“‘ thought it advisable to invest the Declaration of For-
giveness with greater solemnity, by confining it to the
“ higher order of Clergy, while they carefully guarded
*“ against the notion that any mortal could bestow remis-
“ sion of sins.” :

- It will be seen at once, as I have suggested, how
easily, and how effectually, this argument may be em-
ployed in order to account for the nature of the language
admitted in the Service for the Sick.

But the words, “‘Hgo te absolvo,”’ I absolve thee,
were not known, were not used in the Church of God,
before the 12th or 13th century ; as appears abundantly
both from Hooker and from Bingham. And, in fact, in
the 16th century so little jelief was there in the priestly
absolution, that Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury,
(Defence of his Answer to Cartwright) assumes the
acknowledged fact of a bishop having no power to remit
sins, as an illustration to evince that he neither has, nor
pretends to have, power to convey in Ordination the
ae of the Holy Spirit. I am aware, indeed, that in
the words of the Archbishop, a Prelate to whom the
Church of England owes, in a great measure, what she
yet retains of the wreck of her originally vast posses-
sivns, and “the preservation of the Episcopal order :’
{Vid Fry; Qh. Hist. p» 609), and. whose. orthodoxy wes

16

of a type so rigid, that he was an Me of censure
equally at the hands of Puritans andof Romanists—I
am aware that in the Archbishop’s words there will be
found strong grounds for sore disgust to some of our
young sciolists in theology: but, nevertheless, they must

equoted. “To use,” saith he, “these words, ‘ Receive
“ ye the Holy Ghost,’ in ordering of Ministers, which
“ Christ himself used in appointing his Apostles, is no
“ more ridiculous and blasphemous than it is to use the
‘‘ words that he used in the Supper:” and then, proceed-
ing with his argument, he adds, “the Bishop, by speaking
“ these words, doth not take upon him to give the Holy
“« Ghost, no more than he does to remit sins, when he
“« pronounceth the remission of sins.”

Even stronger still is the language of Cranmer, Arch-
bishop and Martyr: which, as connected with the subject
of the last quotation, though not directly bearing upon
the poiut that I am now discussing, I shall venture to
bring forward, as exhibiting how widely the world-
renowned worthies of a former time, men who sealed
their profession with their blood, differed from the mo-
dern school.of Romanizing Theologians. ‘“ There is no
“‘ more promise of God,’’ saith Cranmer, ‘“ that grace is
“ given in the committing of the ecclesiastical office, than
“ there is in the committing of the civil ofice—(Burnet,
Hist. Ref. Vol. 1. B. III. Rec. 21.)

Hear ye this, ye unfledged Divines; alumni of univer-
sities equally unfledged: who seem, in your self-suffi-
ciency, to think that when ye die, “‘ wisdom shall die with

ou!’’
f Two more quotations, from men whose names are in
themselves a tower of strength, and I dismiss this portion
of my subject.

Gilbert Burnet, sometime Bishop of Sarum, writing
on the very topic of the Absolution in the Urder for the
Visitation for the Sick, thus expresses himself :—‘ The
“‘ pardon that we give, in the name of God, is only de-
“‘ claratory of his pardon, or supplicatory in a prayer to
‘‘ Him for pardon :’”” and then he further adds, “ In thie
“we have the whole practice of the Church, 'tll the
“ Twelfth Century, universally on our side.” —(Expos,
Art. xxv.) Here we have, veritably, the famous Canon
of Vincentius Lerinensis, “‘ Quod semper, quod ubigue,

pensure
ists—J
will be
of our
Y must
eceive
which
y is no
ise the
oceed-

baking
+ Holy

1en he

Arch-
ubject
upon
ire to
yorld-
ealed
) moe
is no
ice is
than
rnet,

iver-
suffi-
with

‘ein
‘tion

ting
the
The
de-
t to
thie
the
08,

10n

ue,

17

od ab omnibus,” &o.; the pet formula of the Schools of

xford and of Rome: but—with this difference, it is
wholly on our side—wholly on the side of Protestant,
Evangelie Truth.

Lastly, Richard Hooker, surnamed “ the judicious,”
in bis great work, written in defence of the Church of .
England against the attacks of the Puritans, under the
head of “ Absolution of Penitents,” thus writes; ‘ the
act of sin God alone remitteth.—***** The stain He
** washeth out by the sanctifying grace of his Spirit;
«“ and concerning the punishment of sin, as none else hath
“« power to cast’ body and soul into hell-fire, so none
« hath power to deliver éither; besides Him. As for the
* ministerial sentence of private absolution, it can be ne
“‘ more than a DECLARATION what God hath done: it
‘“* hath but the force of the Prophet Nathan’s Absolution,
“ God hath taken away thy sin ; than which construction,
* especially of words judicial, there is not any thing
‘more common.” And again the judicious Hooker
writes: «‘ Wherefore the further we wade, thebetter we
** see it still appear, that THE PRIEST DOTH NEVER IN
‘* ABSOLUTION (no not so much as by way of service and
“ ministry) REALLY, either ForGivE the act, TAKB
‘¢ away the uncleanness; or REMOVE the punishment of
“sin; but if the party-penitent: come CONTRITE, he hath
“ absolution BEFORE ABSOLUTION; if NOT CONTRITE,
“then, although the Priest should ten thousand times
“absolve him, ALL WERE IN vaiIN.”—(Ecol. Pol. B:
VI. C. 6).

It is furthermore; my Lord, asserted ia this chapter,
that, by the execution of the Priest’s Office, “ men’ are
“ turned from darkness to light, convinced of the folly of
“ their sins, and the necessity of being hely,” &c. No
doubt, through the instrumentality of godly ministers,
such great and glorious results are often witnessed : and
blessed are they that thus “ turn many to righteousness ;
they shall shine as the stars for ever and ever!”
But the spirit of the writer’s assertion in’ this passage’
evidently tends to the inculcation. of the belief, that'these
results follow the effectual working of that one great ins-
trumentality alone’; to magnify which, in every imagi-
nable manner, per fas et xefas, is manifestly the object
high, for the accomplishment of which he kas entered the:

c

18

lists, and laid his lance in rest, prepared as a gallant
knight of chivalry, to hold the field, a /’outrance, against
all comers. He will not admit even the most passing
allusion to the possible fact, that sinners may, in some
rare instances perhaps, be turned from darkness to light,
be convinced of the folly, the danger, and the guilt of
sin, and of thenecessity of newness and of holiness of
life, even through the poor influence of such a worthless
thing as mere lay agency ; or through the prayerful study
of those gracious Oracles, which, if we give aught of
credence to our Lord himself, are able to make men wise
unto salvation. These things are not alluded to, these
topics are not touched upon. Why should they: when
the writer’s object is the enhancement of the power and
dignity of the Priesthood ?

In further support of the object which he affects, the
writer, (most ludicrously, in my judgment) quotes Plu-
tarch, and Strabo, and Porphyry, and Cesar, and Titus
Livius; that we may learn how the Egyptian Kings, if
chosen out of the profane ranks of the soldiery, were im-
mediately obliged to become Priests: how the Magi in
Persia, were “‘ Privy-counsellors to the Emperors :’’ how
the Brachmans in India were exempted from “ legal pen-
alties and tributes”—denefit of clergy, I venture to sug-
gest !—how the Druids of Britain, l'rance, and Germany,
‘“‘judged all public and private causes, and distributed
‘rewards and punishments :’* how the Romans set so
great a value upon the priestly order, that if their highest
magistrates by chance met any of Vesta’s Priests, they
gave them place: how Numa Pompilius—But my pa-
tience fails. Here are this Church Champion’s authori-
ties, (and verily, etrange ones they are :. these antique pa-
gans !) for the due upholding of the dignity of the Chris-
tian Ministry—some of his authorities, at least. And I
wish his upholders and admirers ample joy of them !

In answer to the question, how the priesthood was es-
teemed among Christians in the olden time, we are in-
formed that “ Ecclesiastical history is full of instances of
“ the respect they then paid to their bishops and presby-
“ters, by kissing their hands, and bowing to beg their
“‘ blessing.” If I may venture to hazard the remark, I
would reverently suggest that profane history also af-
fords us instances numberless of similar prostrations—:

A gallant
"y against
, passing
in some
| to light,
guilt of
liness of
vorthless
ful study
aught of
nen wise
to, these
y: when
wer and

cts, the
tes Plu-
id Titus
Cings, if
vere im-
Magi in
:” how
ral pen-
to sug-
rmany;
ributed
set so
highest
, they
my pa-
uthori-
ue pa-
Chris-
And I
n !

Tas es-
re in-
ces of
resby-
their
ark, I
0 af-
ONS——;

19

prostrations both of mind and body : belted knights, and
sceptred kings, bowing in all lowliness and self-abasement
before the shaven priests of Rome; right puissant
sovereigns, like lackeys at the palfrey’s side, humbly
holding bit and stirrup for the gorgeous Hierarch to
mount: throned monarchs suffering their royal dia-
dems to be kicked and trodden by the sacerdotal foot;
and even Imperial forms, half-clad in rags, feet
bare, exposed to all “ the pitiless pelting of the
storm,” waiting for days together, unadmitted, at a

roud Pontiff’s gate. And to descend at once from the
high sublime to the low ridiculous, Newspaper history, if
we had access to the files of some five and twenty or
thirty years ago, would tell us how that the earlier por-
tion of the present century was not one whit behind the
old ecclesiastic times, in the exhibition of the respect men

aid to their Bishops : for is itnot recorded on those files,
to the world-known “ Liberator” of Ireland knelt low-
ly in the mud of Ennis, humbly to claim the passing be-
nediction of his Bishop! But why go back for thirty
years, to disinter examples of reverence for the priestly
office? Is it not, even in this our day, an honour highly
esteemed, and that appertaineth but to few, to be allowed
permission to bow down, and kiss with solemn awe the
toe of him, who sits upon the seven hills, a priest, (if
without profanation I may say it,) “a priest upon his
throne !’’

We are further, my Lord, informed in this chapter,
that the Clergy of the Church’ of England are “ God's
Vice-gerents,” (Will not old Rome feel disposed to con-
sider this announcement as constituting rather a feloni-
ous appropriation of her rights!), ‘God’s Vice-gerents
and visible representatives here on earth ;” that they are
his “ immediate attendants, his domestics ;”’ (really, my
Lord, I transcribe the precise words), that they are
«‘ empowered and authorized to transact for God; and
“« that not only in some particular things,” but in fact in
all things relating to the wondrous subject of “ reconci-
liation between God and man.”

This concluding statement, I pray your Lordship to
remark, is closely in accordance with one of the dogmas
of the somewhat notorious “ Beaven’s Catechism :” ‘a
work which, I may observe, ex passant, though rejected

by « section of the Protestant Episcopal Church
in the Uaited States, ae unsound in doctrine, was, it is
well known, @urreptitiously introduced some time since in-
to the Church Society’s Depository, by one of your Lord-
ship’s Clergy; and has alse been largely used at the
National Sunday School, and I believe at some other of
our Sup@ay Schools in this city, especially in the instrug-
tion of catididates for the Confirmation recently held by
your Lordship. In Beaven there are, romncne many other
eurious, and some unseemly, things,) the following que:-
tion and answer :—Q. What persons are authorized iw
Teconcile penitent sinners to God?!—Ans. The Miuisiers
of the Church—And, as a proof, we are referred ic
2 Cor. v. 18, 19: “ All things are of God, who hath re-
** conciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, aud huth given
* unto us the ministry of reconciliation : to wit, that God
«* was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not
“ imputing their trespagees unto them; and bath com-
“ mitted unto us the word of reconciliation.” Well, what-
ever may be the delinquencies of Dr. Beaven in other
respects, h those who are better acquainted with his
writings } Tam, tell me that their name is “* Legion,’’)
he cannot at all events, in this instance, or in others that I
could cite, if it were not foreign from my present subject,
be justly taxed with “quoting Scripture for his pur-
poses :” for, if there be one passage. more than another
unsuited to his purpose, if there be one passage that
more clearly than another disproves his assertion, if
there be one passage that utterly demolishes his arrogant
assumption, it is this. Does not the Lord’s Apostle,
speaking directly by inspiration, here declare that it is
God who reconciles sinners to himself by Jesus Ohrist;
and that He had committed, even to the Apostles of his
Gon, the ministry and the word of reconciliation alone %
In other language, that the 1: in is‘ors of God are to pro.
claim to sinners the werd, tc “.°‘rviee, the corms, of
merey and of reconciliatio: §: urge upon them ear-
nestly the belief of that doctrine, the acceptance of those
terms; and, as ambassadors for Ohrist, to pray them in
Christ's stead te be reconciled to God. But there isnot
so much as the shadow of a hasis for the bold assump-
tion, that men are reconciled to an offended God by the
‘Ministers of the Church. If we needed, indeed, a com-

24

ment upon the words of the Apostle Paul, if we de-
pired to know the meaning he himself attached to the
expression, * the ministry of reconeiliation,” we should
find it in Lis own language addressed to the elders of the
Chureh at Ephesus; when, in prospect of bonds, and
afflictions, and even of death, he spoke unto thent in
words well worthy of “ Paul, the aged,” well worthy of
the Christian warrior, and right loyal servant of his
Lord: “None of these things move me, neither count I
“ my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my
“course with joy, and the yninistry, which I have re-
“ geived of the Lord Jesus, éo testify the gospel of the
4s oo of God !” :
he fourth and last chapter refers to many and miscel-
Janeous matters; and, in the first place, to “ the duty of
“all: Lay-Christians to their spiritual governors,” 1
might possibly take exception to the last term—but let it
ass. I concur sincerely jn the writer’s sentiment, (for
it is scriptnral,) that with regard to the ministers of the
Church, the members of the Laity are bound “to honour
“and esteem them highly for their work’s sake, to treat
“‘them with respect and reverence ; to love them, to pro-
“‘ vide for their maintenance, to pray for them; ad to
“ obey them,’’ at least in all things lawful.

But I am again compelled to join issue with the wri-
ter. ‘If the ministers of God,” saith he, “do not act
“suitably to the dignity of their character, may we not
“contemn them?’ No, no! quoth Nelson on the Fasts
and Festivals. “Their character should certainly de-
fend them from contempt.’ What! Their character
‘defend them from contempt! Though that character, as
assumed in the question, be unworthy of a Christian mi-
nister ? Though that character be a stain and blot upon
the holy profession which they disgrace ? Was ever any
thing more illogically perverse, more absurdly monstrous,
‘written !

To make allowance for human infirmities, to cast a veil
of charity over many failings, to pity and compassionate
those that¢through mortal frailty and strong temptation,
may have fallen, is questionless the duty of every christian
man. But, that we are bound to hold in honour those that
walk unworthily of their holy calling, simply because
such is their calling ; that we are forbidden to entertain

22

towards them even sentiments of contempt, when the
dishonour they do to God and to his holy cause might,
if we were strictly to interpret the Psalmist’s words,

3. 139. 21,22.) warrant well even a far sterner feeling :
this I have yet to learn, this I have yet to be persuaded
to believe. :

In further pursuance of his theme, “ A pardon,” says
our author, “ passed by an immoral lord-keeper, or a sen-
«‘ tence pronounced by a wicked judge, are looked upon as
‘‘ valid to all intents and purposes, because their efficacy
‘‘ depends not upon the qualifications of those in commis-
‘sion, but upon the sovereign authority from whence
«‘ they both receive their commission. So the advantages
‘we derive by their administrations,” (i.e. the adminis-
trations of unworthy ministers), “ andthe relation they
«« have to God should still preserve respect for their per-
“sons.” I acknowledge, my Lord, the validity of the
pardon passed by the immoral lord-keeper: I acknowlege
the validity of the sentence pronounced by the wicked
judge. But I entertain no shadow of respect for the per-
sons or the principles of either : on the contrary, I thorough-
ly despise, and from my heart contemn, both the lord-
keeper and the judge. And similarly so, by a parity of
reasoning, and by following out the line of argument indi-
cated by the writer, if I do not conceive myself justified in
absolutely despising, I do conceive myself more than jus-
tified in withholding all respect—emphatically, all res-
pect—from him who, knowingly and advisedly, acts
unworthily of the character he assumes; I care not
whether it be in things temporal, or in things eternal : even
though his commission proclaim him an ordained Minister
of the Church.

I pass over several pages bearing on the same topic,
and come to the subject of Tithes. In connection with
which we are edified by a quotation from Sir Edmund
Coke (lib. I.C.9, Sect. 73, fol. 58), and a sprinkling of
old Norman French: tothe effect that “the first Kings
‘ofthe realm had all the lands of England in demesne,
“‘ and les grands manours and les royalties the¥ reserved ;
‘and with the remnant they enfeoffed the barons.” Ab-
bot Ingulph, and Matthew of Westminster (A. 855) are
then cited as witnesses to prove that “ at this time Ethel-
“ wulf, the second monarch of the Saxon race after the

ages
us

23

“ Heptarchy, conferred the tithes of all the Kingdom upon
“the Church.” Here we are furnished with references
to St. Ireneeus (Adv. Her. 1. IV. 0.34), Origen (Cont.
Col.1. VIII. P. 440), and St. Cyprian (Unit. Eccl. n. 3,
Can. 4, 36).—Nice light reading this, my Lord; and pro-
fitable withal, for the illiterate poor !

The next subject discussed is Sacrilege. A sin of very
early date indeed: for the most remarkable example —
adduced is the case of Adam; who, it is stated, “as some
‘think, ate of that tree as common, which God had reser-
“ ved to himself as holy.” This topic is dismissed with
a grave reference to “ Sir Henry Spelman’s History and
Fate of Sacrilege discovered hy examples,” &c. Sir
Henry (for I have taken the trouble of looking into the
subject) having purchased certain lands, which had in
former times constituted a portion of the possessions of
two of the suppressed monasteries; and encountering
obstacles to the quiet enjoyment of his purchase; was
seized, (protestant though he was), with violent scruples
of conscience as +o the lawfulness of a layman, or of
any man, enjoying the broad lands of the ejected Monks :
and wrote on the subject a work entitled, De non teme-
randis Ecclesiis. At a later period, A. D. 1620, or
thereabouts, influenced by the same “ compunctious
visitings,’’ he published the History and Fate of Sacri-
lege. It relates chiefly to the alienation of Church and
Abbey lands: and weare directed to its antique pages
for evidence, as to the “ destruction this grievous crime
“ brought upon several families of the nobility and gen-
“try” of the English nation. This folio would have
formed, unquestionably, in former years an invaluable
addition to the libraries of the legislators of Canada;
and might have worked wonders in the prevention, or
retardation, of the Secularization of the Clergy Reserves :
but I must be permitted to question, hesitatingly, its
general adaptation to the somewhat unlettered latitude
of the Suburbs of Quebec.

To Sacrilege succeeds Simony. For the more effec-
tual suppression of which, we are informed, that “ it is
“determined by the laws >of our Church that there
“should be no Ministers sine titulo among us:” and
that “ the party presented to any benefice shall make
“ oath that he hath made no simoniacal payment, con-

24

“ tract, or promise, directly or indirectly, for obtaining
“ the preferment.—(Can. 40.) In the reign of Eliza-
beth, we are further told, it-was enacted, “ that he who
“‘takes money for presenting, shall forfeit double the
“value of one year’s profit of the living; and that he
‘“‘ who ordains for money, shall, besides being otherwise
censurable, forfeit the sum of forty pounds.”—(31 Eliz.
c. vii.) Lastly, we are instructed, that it. hath been
shown by Bishop Stillingfleet, “ that by the old Eeele-
“ siastical law (Eccles. Cases, p. 32) before the stat. 32
“ Eliz., a deprivation and disability was incurred by 4
** stmoniacus.””

O, my Lord, what worthless husks are these, which
we dare to proffer to the poor, the needy, and the hun-
gry! Nay, worse than husks: for in such some nutri-
inent may be found. But the famishing ask us for bread :
and we give them a; stone—for fish : and we offer to them
a serpent.

One more notice, and for the present I have done. It
may be that hereafter, (if the Lord will), I shall take the
liberty of respectfully directing your Lordship’s atten
tion to certain further evidences of those Tractarian
tendencies, which I have referred to in the earlier portion
of this letter. At present I enter not more deeply into
the subject, lest I should pass unreasonably the bounds
of space allotted ordinarily to letter-writing.

After explaining the nature of Schism,: and making
refurenee to the subjects of Donatism, Novatianism, and
Arianism, the writer demands, “ What may we learn
“ from the consideration of those duties which we owe
“to the Ministers of Jesus Christ?’ Among the more
prominent portions of the answer are the following; we
learn “ that one proper method to increase our reward in
“ the next world is, to do all good offices tu those that
‘“‘ are dedicated to the service of the Altar ;’’ and, “ that
“there is no better way to edify the body of Christ,
“‘ than by preserving a great deference for our spiritual.
‘“‘ governors.” No better way, doth this old. writer tell
us !—The Word.of God, I trow, if studied in a prayerful,
humble, and obedientlal spirit, would show unto us @
better, “ a more excellent way,” than this !

I have now, my Lord, (to borrow a forensic phrase)
gone through my case: and I beg to commend it humbly

— erm): wee ww DS HD ht

wee t+ t

aBQearnwt O&O co

a, a
se

~~ — —

etecter @e OF ei

25

to your grave consideration. I trust that I have demon-
strated satisfactorily, that there did indeed exist grounds
amply sufficient to vindicate the justice of the statements,
to which I gave publicity, on the occasion to which alrea-
dy reference has been made. That such grounds have
existed, and do exist, no man in your Lordship’s Diocese
regrets more deeply, or more sorrowfully, than I do.
And if, in the preceding pages, I have sometimes written .
in astyle lighter than some might deem the solemn nature _
of the theme required ; it was only on the old Horatian
principle, the adoption of which your Lordship’s classic
tastes will not condemn:
“ Ridiculum acri
Fortius et melius magnas plerumque secat res.” .

T have, in reality, written in sadness. And with a re-
luctant hand have I exposed the gangrene, that has
already commenced to eat its way into the vitals of the
Church. Such exposure, however, was a stern and sad
necessity. For unless the evil were unveiled, unless the
unsightly sore were laid bare, its existence would be dis-
believed; and none would lift the knife for its extirpation,
until it had spread too. widely, and too deeply, for re-
moval.

My Lord, your Lordship has presided long over this Dio-
cese. Your character is well known, and justly held in .
favourable esteem. You arejlooked up to, personally, with
sentiments of regard and reverence by the majority: among
whom I claim permission to include myself. By those
possessed of better opportunities than I can pretend to,
for forming an estimate on such subjects, you are said,
(whatever may be the principles of some, presumed to
rank high in your Lordship’s confidence and favour), to
have no sympathy with the views of the ultra-High-
Church or Tractarian Party. I have therefore the more
boldness in addressing my solemn appeal unto your
Lordship. With regard, then, to the Tract of which this
letter treats, and which is now by the hands of some of
your Lordship’s Clergy circulating in this city, I call
upon you, with all the respect and reverence due to the
high office which you hold, to examine well, and to
declare distinctly, whether you. look upon it as
teaching doctrines consonant to the doctrines of the
Church of England. I call upon you, as a Bishop

D

$6

efid Sheplierd of thd flock for which Christ died,
to pronouncd whether it is a work, which furnishes
food sound, dnd guitable, and nourishing to the sheep
arid lambs of that flock, over which God has given
you the oversight: I call upon you to say, whether you
consider it calculated to prove instrumental in winning
souls to Obrist, in turning them from darkness to light,
fron the power of Satan unto God, and in making them
wise’ unto’ salvation; through faith which is in Christ
Jesus. I call upon you to say, whether the themes
dilated on in this publication of the “ Society for promo-.
ting Christian Knowledge,” constitute such subjects of
contemplation as até meet and profitable for pee and
the dying siftier : for ihto' the hands of such it has been
given. And; anticipating fully from your Lordship a
pos. act reply upon thesé several points; convinced,
moreover; with respect to the statements and doctrines
which I have’ here’ endeavoured—faithfully at least,
however fébbly—to expose ; that it will be abundantly
sufficient to submit them simply to your notice, in order
to insure tiieir condémnation at your Lordship’s' hands:
I call upon you; in God's name, using the authority which
He has given you, to put an end at. once to the dissemina-
tion of this; end of such-like unprofitable, and unwhole-
— publications; in your Lordship’s Parish, and Diocese
at large,’ eas eT Ne eae

Praying from'the héart that, in the langnage of our
taney, the great Head‘ of thé Church may grant unto
- your Lordship that you «‘ may both perceive and know |

“ what things you ought to do, and also may have grace
“ ahd power faithfully to fulfil the same,”

I have the honer to be,
My Lord;
Your Lordship’s Obdt.,’
And Humble Servt.,
se 8, GILBERT PERCY, LL.D.
Quebec;
April, 24, 1858.